Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW


avelanch

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Moose Nuckle said:

We should have kept Megna and put him on the first line then eh?

Not really sure what the correlation is? We have a good young core that know what expectations are, and we have vets who not long ago played some pretty decent hockey. Megna fell into neither classification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kloubek said:

Not really sure what the correlation is? We have a good young core that know what expectations are, and we have vets who not long ago played some pretty decent hockey. Megna fell into neither classification.

Players that are good in training camp. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

An extra at practice today again ftr, not good no matter how you slice it.  

Man, what's it going to take for him to up his game/ compete level/ maturity

Sure hope it's something that just a bit of time and patience will fix

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Moose Nuckle said:

Players that are good in training camp. 

Ah.

 

The other poster clarified what I meant. It was primarily players who aren't our typical go-to guys where it is critical. They need to know where they place in the lineup.and the coaches need to gauge how committed they are and if they should be in the lineup

Having guys like Zach helps in that if you aren't gonna give it your all, there is a guy who will.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Lock said:

So basically you have no evidence in the same sense that you're accusing other people. *slow clap*

 

All I'm saying is, if you expect other people to "have evidence" you need to also provide evidence, otherwise you just sound like a kid going "provide evidence, provide evidence, provide evidence" as if it's a new word you just discovered. lol

that is right, you say it happens, I say provide evidense or you are full of beans

Did I not already post Bieksa?

Yes I provided Bieksa.

what you got?

nothing

better than nothing, you have alluded to a  story about Buff and Kane that negates your own arguement

 

See the difference between you and me Lock, is that I post my opinion, while you post your opinion dreesed up as fact. And because you exagerate your opinion and claim it to be fact, I will ask for proof. Because facts are provable or thay are not fact.

So when you say, "... most of the time it harms the team", that means you should be able to outnumber my examples with your examples

At this point I score this debate 1-0  for me based on my Bieksa.

If you provide 2 examples of teamate fisticuffs harming the team, then I will have to find another example

until then, I am resting on my Bieksa and you are slow clapping

Edited by lmm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2020 at 1:15 PM, Provost said:

OK Jake's Mom... slow your roll.

Jake had a mediocre and uneven season, and has earned every bit of suspicion and concern that folks have of him and his future.  The guy is like Cody Hodgson in taking a whole lot of energy from the coaches just to do his job... and he still can't do it regularly.

He knows the extra attention he got from his coaches and the fans, and he still doesn't come into camp one of the sharpest guys.  Team mates made it into town from other continents and were doing informal skates... but Jake couldn't make it in to join them even though he was local.  We got video of the guys running themselves through practices on their own getting their legs... no Jake, oh wait we did get pictures of him at a bar instead.  If you have had trouble getting into shape and getting going every single year of your pro career, you had better be putting in at least as much effort as the rest of your team.  

I take a guy like Stecher who has less gifts but will chew through a wall to play (especially for the Canucks) over a guy with all the tools and physical gifts who after five years in the league hasn't managed to get the idea of how to consistently be an every day pro.

He is seriously in danger of losing an opening night roster spot to MacEwan and Eriksson.  These aren't hall of famers.  I don't even take Motte out of the lineup to insert Jake, and Motte is the Biega version of a forward who is barely an NHLer.

^^^ This is a pretty clear headed take on Virtanen.  I totally agree.  But I would like to add that he did take strides.  He finally started hitting the net with his wicked wrister and fans got really excited.  Then he had a massive drought as the pace of play stepped up.  This is a man-child who has never had to work hard to get what he wanted out of hockey.  Guys like him are a dime a dozen.  

 

And now?  He shows up to camp as if he thinks he's a lock.  How predictable.

 

All the other players on the team know the gifts Virtanen has and yet he doesn't have the work ethic.  He doesn't have half the drive that Petey or Bo have.  The rest of the team is losing respect for Jake.  

 

The coaches love guys like Motte and MacEwen because they're balls to the wall and the rest of the players love that kind of effort.  Ha ha, you bring up Stecher.  Remember the story I think 2 years ago before camp he was pushing himself so hard during work outs that he puked.  That is the kind of commitment that coaches love.   Horvat has already snapped at Jake in front of everybody and now he's in Green's dog house.  What he really needs is to watch MacEwen play in his place in games that count.

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, lmm said:

that is right, you say it happens, I say provide evidense or you are full of beans

Did I not already post Bieksa?

Yes I provided Bieksa.

what you got?

nothing

Explain to me how Bieska's evidence. What was the outcome? How does it support your claim?

 

Come on dude, debate. If you actually do it and provide actual evidence (I expect at least a decent sized paragraph on this) I promise I will try and come up with counter arguments. If I don't respond again, it'll be because you haven't done so and there's just no point in trying to get you out of this pettiness.

Edited by The Lock
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

An extra at practice today again ftr, not good no matter how you slice it.  

Reminiscent of him being in ‘group c’ or whatever at training camp. Disappointing to say the least but he came to play when it counted no reason to think he cant do so again as long as he has his legs under him he better have been doing some dam cardio

 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canucks-training-camp-jake-virtanen

 

Virtanen gets AHL-treatment from Canucks coach in first training camp practice

Edited by Chicken.
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Jake. Have since he was drafted. He's got lots of great tools and has made progress every year. 

 

That said, he clearly has maturity/commitment issues (whether bigger or smaller in reality than here/in the media, they're clearly there). As much as the Canucks likely love his tools, something tells me they're less of a fan of this part of Jake. It's not the mold of a 'Canuck' they're looking for.

 

Now we have MacEwan gunning for his spot, Podkolzin likely here next spring and even a guy like Lind showing he should probably get some looks in the next year or so. Anybody who doesn't see that pretty obvious (IMO) chain of events coming, isn't paying attention/is in denial.

 

IMO, this offseason/next year, he's shopped/packaged for a D.

 

Edit:

I'll add that I hope he has a good play-in/off. Not only will it be good for the team and him... But it will also boost his trade value ::D

Edited by aGENT
  • Cheers 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Explain to me how Bieska's evidence. What was the outcome? How does it support your claim?

 

Come on dude, debate. If you actually do it and provide actual evidence (I expect at least a decent sized paragraph on this) I promise I will try and come up with counter arguments. If I don't respond again, it'll be because you haven't done so and there's just no point in trying to get you out of this pettiness.

the problem with long posts is that it gives too much room to dance around the subject.

If we keep it short, we stay on topic.

At this point we can debate 3 things

1. fisticuffs is good/bad for the team (my arguement, I guess)

2. humiliating a teammate with words is good for the team (that was Shaysters point)

3. Bo's leadership (your response to my post)

 

so no need for me to make a long post until we decide which topic we are debating or we might end out with more topics.

if you want to post your opinion, I will debate your opinion, if you make it sound like fact, I will ask for proof.

If we move on with Bieksa, that fall into  topic 1

but you have not offered any response to my asking for proof about "most times...", so you are just passing on that one? You could just delete that statement, and we move onto Bieksa

 

debates have rules, and these are the rules i am willing to debate under, feel free to add some of your own

name calling is generally frowned upon.

 

or if ou prefer

http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm

we can use these

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, lmm said:

the problem with long posts is that it gives too much room to dance around the subject.

If we keep it short, we stay on topic.

At this point we can debate 3 things

1. fisticuffs is good/bad for the team (my arguement, I guess)

2. humiliating a teammate with words is good for the team (that was Shaysters point)

3. Bo's leadership (your response to my post)

 

so no need for me to make a long post until we decide which topic we are debating or we might end out with more topics.

if you want to post your opinion, I will debate your opinion, if you make it sound like fact, I will ask for proof.

If we move on with Bieksa, that fall into  topic 1

but you have not offered any response to my asking for proof about "most times...", so you are just passing on that one? You could just delete that statement, and we move onto Bieksa

 

debates have rules, and these are the rules i am willing to debate under, feel free to add some of your own

name calling is generally frowned upon.

 

or if ou prefer

http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm

we can use these

Okay. Thank you for this. I can respect this and I think this is much better than simply going "where's your evidence" and slapping on a video and calling it a day. ;)

 

First of all, let me clarify my stance on all 3 subjects without going into details yet:

1. Fistcuffs can be good for a team in a game . (Serious) fistcuffs in practice generally lead to breakdowns in the locker room which I think is bad (or at least risky),

2. Humiliating a teammate: that's an interesting one as there's a right time and a wrong time as well as a right person and a wrong person to do it on. I'm up in the air there, but I could potentially get persuaded.

3. Ultimately, I think Bo punching Jake in practice is bad. It falls in line with part 1.

 

So I'm going to let you choose here a bit, but to give a little more detail of the above:

 

1) Fighting is pretty synonymous with the game and fistcuffs are pretty good way to rally things up. I doubt we'd disagree there. However, when it comes to decking a teammate in practice, we have to look at a couple of things:

    i) What are the implications in the locker room? Will there be bad blood in the end?

    ii) What sort of impact (if at all) is it actually going to have on the player? Will it actually teach a lesson?

    iii) Are we talking just a straight up deck or are we talking about the 2 of them in a brawl? The later is a lot more common in practice. The former's kind of $&!#ty if it knocks          the person out or something. lol

 

2) So let me go back to the whole Byfuglien/Kane thing, I believe that was words which would fall under number 2. Obviously, that was a situation where it wasn't good for the team and ultimately resulted in a trade (without getting into semantics on if it was what caused the trade in the first place). However, there can be times (ie. Torts yelling) where it can actually be a good thing (or backfire). This is where is depends on the person and the situation really.

 

3) I don't question Horvat's leadership (nor do I think that's what's being questioned here in the first place). I'm going to resort to point one with my opinion on this and we can go from there. 

Edited by The Lock
  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Okay. Thank you for this. I can respect this and I think this is much better than simply going "where's your evidence" and slapping on a video and calling it a day. ;)

 

First of all, let me clarify my stance on all 3 subjects without going into details yet:

1. Fistcuffs can be good for a team in a game . (Serious) fistcuffs in practice generally lead to breakdowns in the locker room which I think is bad (or at least risky),

2. Humiliating a teammate: that's an interesting one as there's a right time and a wrong time as well as a right person and a wrong person to do it on. I'm up in the air there, but I could potentially get persuaded.

3. Ultimately, I think Bo punching Jake in practice is bad. It falls in line with part 1.

 

So I'm going to let you choose here a bit, but to give a little more detail of the above:

 

1) Fighting is pretty synonymous with the game and fistcuffs are pretty good way to rally things up. I doubt we'd disagree there. However, when it comes to decking a teammate in practice, we have to look at a couple of things:

    i) What are the implications in the locker room? Will there be bad blood in the end?

    ii) What sort of impact (if at all) is it actually going to have on the player? Will it actually teach a lesson?

    iii) Are we talking just a straight up deck or are we talking about the 2 of them in a brawl? The later is a lot more common in practice. The former's kind of $&!#ty if it knocks          the person out or something. lol

 

2) So let me go back to the whole Byfuglien/Kane thing, I believe that was words which would fall under number 2. Obviously, that was a situation where it wasn't good for the team and ultimately resulted in a trade (without getting into semantics on if it was what caused the trade in the first place). However, there can be times (ie. Torts yelling) where it can actually be a good thing (or backfire). This is where is depends on the person and the situation really.

 

3) I don't question Horvat's leadership (nor do I think that's what's being questioned here in the first place). I'm going to resort to point one with my opinion on this and we can go from there. 

I can work from this. But i am going out into the yard. I will get back to you on it

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tuna Justice warriors are at it again, not going to read the drooling's in this thread. Travis Green is a F%&ing idiot to create this type of nothing BS every training camp. He reminds me of that D-bag boss we've all had, picks a whipping boy and all his fart sniffing lowlifes pile on. I can't stand his smirk.

Bo Horvat should try sticking up for his team mates in the games once in awhile, rather than yelling like a tough guy in training camp.

Anyone that attacks Virtanen over driving in his gear or going to a club for one drink or throwing one hit in a scrimmage needs to get a life.

  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...